By Here is a perfect example of the media pushing global warming propaganda:
The world has warmed by an average of 0.76 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times and the temperature rise is accelerating, according to the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which gathers the world’s leading scientists under a United Nations umbrella. The report also shows that climate change caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases is already having strong effects on ecosystems, water resources and coastal zones across the world. It is affecting people in many ways, including higher mortality during heat waves, water scarcity and changes in the distribution of diseases like malaria.
Without action to limit future emissions, the global average temperature is likely to increase further by 1.8 degrees to 4 degrees Celsius this century and in the worst case scenario by as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius.
We cannot allow this to happen. United Nations negotiations on an international climate agreement are due to be concluded in Copenhagen in December 2009. This agreement must be ambitious, global and comprehensive. Climate change can be addressed effectively only through a global effort. [Korea Herald]
First of all the increase in temperatures is not even one degree and the accuracy of this number is highly disputed. Temperatures have without a doubt increased but they have been overall increasing since the last ice age and it has actually been hotter before than it is now and driving SUV’s had nothing to do with it back then. Notice how the article deals with effects of global warming, with many of them not true, but lets say they are true this article does not provide one fact to support CO2 caused global warming. Instead it uses the typical global warming scaremongering to drive a emotional reaction with no facts. Also keep in mind this article does not provide one mention that none of these vaunted computer models predicting eternal fiery damnation for all of us predicted the drop in temperatures from this past decade.
What else I found interesting was the EU propaganda in the article. The Europeans have been demanding that countries cut 40% of greenhouse gases based off of 1990 levels because they would not have to do anything themselves. The Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon in 1997, why did they decide to base emission cuts off of 1990 levels when the agreement was signed in 1997? Likewise why are the Europeans still demanding cuts be based off of 1990 levels today? Think about it, what happened in 1990? The Soviet Union collapsed along with the entire industrial based economies of Eastern Europe. The Europeans have cleverly grouped themselves together into one big European block for emissions targets because Western Europe’s continuing rise in greenhouse gases is offset by the collapse of the Eastern European economies after the fall of the Soviet Union. If Western Europe was their own block they would not meet the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements because of their rising greenhouse gas emissions. That is why they are demanding the 1990 level for cuts. This allows them to continue with their rising greenhouse gases and then play the holier than thou card against the United States. Canada and Japan foolishly signed the original Kyoto Protocol just to see both of their countries’ greenhouse gases rise and are not able to meet the treaty’s requirements. That is why both these nations have joined the United States in renegotiating the treaty’s requirements.
If the EU was serious about cutting their greenhouse gases to save the world from eternal fiery damnation then why don’t they base it off of 2000 levels? Maybe because cutting greenhouse gases has nothing to do with saving the world from fiery damnation?
6:04 pm on July 8th, 2009 1
Check it for yourself: Global surface temperature increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. In the past, just like today, every time Methane and CO2 gases increased in the atmosphere the temperature went up. Every single time.
10:25 pm on July 8th, 2009 2
The global temperature does not increase with the increase of greenhouse gases. If this was the case temperatures would be rising right now due to the increased greenhouse gases but they are not. Temperatures are in fact falling.
If CO2 was linked to global warming than why was 1934 revised as the hottest <del datetime="2009-07-09T22:51:28+00:00">day</del> year on record instead of 1998? 1934 was during the Great Depression when the amount of carbon being released was greatly reduced.
The facts are that carbon increases do not cause global warming, it is something that happens after global warming has already happened.
12:34 am on July 9th, 2009 3
Fact is, the temperatures are rising right now and that's disputed by a ever shrinking minority. Plus you know a record high temperature for one day in 1934 doesn't disprove climate change. The highest annual temperatures on record are happening now. I encourage you and everyone else to form their own opinions but just look at the data – "Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
1:25 am on July 9th, 2009 4
The founder of The Weather Channel thinks its full of **** but he must be a crackpot.
Scientists report completely opposite findings on all sorts of topics almost yearly as if it is fact.
The only FACT here is that Global Warming is a theory and has not been proven. It makes a convenient political issue.
2:23 am on July 9th, 2009 5
A convenient political issue and possibly a very expensive one. Good old Global Warming gets trotted out as a means to change everything from social realities to raising taxes. The dogma approaches becoming a religion and we all know religions are very useful when attempting to control sheeple. No one wants to be seen as anti-environment. YOU do not want to be seen as anti-environment, do you citizen?
…and let's face it, everyone at some level wants the environment to be clean. Of course.
9:54 am on July 9th, 2009 6
Quick correction on my comment above. I meant the hottest year on record was 1934, not day. So why was 1934 hotter than 1998 if CO2 was no where near as high as it is now?
10:01 am on July 9th, 2009 7
Temperatures are actually dropping over the past decade as I have already demonstrated. Overall in the past few decades there has been an increase which no one disputes. The dispute is whether CO2 causes the rise which no one has been able to prove.
Claiming that global warming skeptics don't believe the globe is warming is besides the point and irrelevant. What matters is what is causing the globe to warm which is not CO2.
11:30 am on July 9th, 2009 8
The Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) record is what counts, not the Contiguous Lower 48 U.S. Surface record. See, this is how a minority of people skew the data to mislead the general public. If you look at the real data, not the selective data you will see the Global Temperature is rising, 19 out of the last 26 years (GMST) have been the hottest on record.
12:48 pm on July 9th, 2009 9
I don't know why I even bother because telling someone of the eco-faith that the globe is cooling is like telling a Christian that Jesus didn't ever exist, they just won't believe it. The Global Mean Surface Temperature shows that the globe is cooling:
As I said before your argument is totally irrelevant anyway because this issue not whether the globe is warming or cooling; the issue is whether CO2 is causing it which no one has been able to scientifically prove.
Claiming that the globe is warming or cooling is nothing but a distraction from the real issue.
1:34 pm on July 9th, 2009 10
You skeptics sicken me!
How can you seriously contradict the globally-accepted Facts if you can't even use the correct terminology?
The use of "global warming" is vastly outdated and shows that you are environmentally ignorant and obviously haven't kept up with the latest developments in climate research representation.
Even the few of you who use "climate change" to appear informed and knowledgeable on the subject come off as grasping posers attempting to speak of things you don't fully understand while trying to chisel away at the accepted scientific and political consensus.
To properly represent the coming environmental apocalypse, "atmospheric deterioration" is the latest term of choice as it more correctly reflects the emotional gravity of the situation.
If skeptics are so far behind in their simple scientific terminology, how can their science even be taken seriously.
2:39 pm on July 9th, 2009 11
GI, you're right. This is futile for both of us. The good thing is that we agree to disagree. I pray that I'm wrong about climate change.